DexGuru Token Model [DRAFT]

If this type of token sales don’t work well this guy you mentioned(who accidentally might be VCs or
…) can buy large portion of tokens and lock that and in this case The ratio between dao and non-dao will change. It’s also from tge day. And in your model current dao just have maximum 5% of powers.
This guy can easily decide on spending other parts of dao treasury .
This is why I think this model of token sales could be dangerous for the dao nature.
If we sale token by ido(or somthing like that) type with lockdown it would prevent some kind of problems and we can also get liquidity for pools in my opinion

Please, read how veToken model works. We are talking about distribution of GURU tokens that has no rights in DAO governance. You should lock GURU to receive veGURU that has governance rights in DAO.

1 Like

I agree this kinda distribution way.
Airdrop and LBP should also be 15% . and When the token launch on ,there will be someone to buy guru tokens ,not only sell orders.
Because after that Guru DAO will refer some good ways to collect guru or burn it.


First of all thank you for the details. I would like to mention whether the airdrop should be increased to 10%, which should not cause high selling pressure on $guru, and I think we should allocate about 30% to the Treasury.

Yes ,I think only 100000000 tokens in total not enough .1B will be good .
Cause small numbers with higher price will lead to fear of purchasing from newbies .
So big number and lower price of tokens will attract more longer and there are many projects deployed their tokens into 1B and they have done good jobs.

1 Like

That is not a unit bias and this is a way not stopping the later comer to buy guru tokens.
More total in supply will show lower price and will attract more sight to buy .
Small total in supply will show higher price and lead to sell action.
These are investment Psychology.
So I think there will be more upvote on 1B than 100M .


Do not agree you opinion .there are no way to resolve the problem that airdrop selling .
and no way to balance the lbp and airdrop .
And if you give a little portion of token to community airdrop ,there will arise many negative words and emotion about Dexguru ,the whole community .
We know your draft for token distribution is to get more imcome for the DAO tresury and keep price of guru token .But the drift will absolutly broken the heart of community and no one will use dexguru anymore .
And What i want to tell you is user and community important than any other things.


I have to say Nick is right, most people will sell the airdrop tokens within 2 weeks.
What do you think if I make the following changes to your proposal:

12% for LBP(Although I don’t like it, we need more liquidity). 12% for airdrop: 8%–TGE, 4%–6 month cliff date, Unlock every month for 2 years.
And set conditions for this, you can choose $GURU or $veGURU when claiming airdrop.

1.If you claim $GURU within 6 months, you will lose the distribution of the remaining 4% tokens.

2.If you choose $veGURU. You will have voting rights and can exchange it for $GURU at any time (Exchange $veGURU for $GURU whitin 6 months will also lose the distribution of the remaining 4% tokens.).

3.All those who have not claimed $GURU within 6 months will receive an equal distribution of 4% tokens.(No cliff data.Unlock every month for 2 years).

For me personally, I think this is good, if you choose to leave, you can already get enough distribution to reward your previous contribution to the DAO. If you stay and continue to participate in governance, you can get some rewards from those who leave.

While there’s no way we can do a rigorous calculation on this model, I think both those who leave and those who stay will get what they want.


Let’s be realistic, DAO participants != Drop hunter(not equal), early adopters created trading volume that team presented to VC to get round A, that’s not money from the sky - that’s how crypto projects get incredible valuation. You win = We win. Project need loyal community to get round B, also project need decentralization.

For sure I understand this position, I would like to keep token price as much as it possible, but team decide to create DAO, and DAO now is part of your team. One part will sell their tokens, others will hold & stake them, the others will buy the dip. Everyone have right to make their choice.

Now we can see how participants vote, 7.5% for early adopters at tge won’t impact badly on 22.5% lbp and treasure will have 22.5%. 7.5% with vesting will create additional trading volume and will create true DAO. We win = You win. You need to share - that’s how collaboration works.


Good afternoon, everyone. Given that the neighboring proposal already does not pass the temperature check, we can propose the following model: we take initially-proposed 1-5% allocation of tokens for DAO (it is discussed, but the emphasis is not on this) and make vesting for DAO users in 6 months with a partial unlock on TGE (conditionally 20%) and the rest unlocked in parts, so that does not create excessive pressure on the price of token sellers. You may think that only hunters put pressure on the price, but that is not true, we can look at the example of UNI and dydx, the price is also pressured by regular users, as a huge part of them also sells their drops. If I gather a lot of likes under the proposal, I can think about creating a proposal.

I feel that the 1-5% allocation of rewards to the initial GuruDAO participants needs further discussion in the allocation. However, if the allocation is to be further increased, there will need to be a more rigorous scrutiny of whether or not those with season pass NFTs are long-term community participants.

Is it possible to add extra multiplier for those who active in protocol governance life ?
I mean that part:

So, those of veGURU holders who participated in votings receive multiplier to their rewards compared to passive holders.
That way system will stimulate peoples to be more active.
Details of this multiplier schema can be anyhow complicated or simplified… that topic for another discussion ofc…


Early adopters should be 10%.

They have come a long way.

Damn 1-5% is discouraging for early adopters since 2021

1 Like

I’m looking towards this direction as well as it would encourage the early to build more into the project than 1-5% would do.

1 Like

I would agree to 10% airdrop to early adopters, however lets discuss more to weigh the pros and cons comparing 5% to 10% which are more beneficial


Seems like you guys know what are you doing so I trust your judgement.

But always leave room for mistakes that could be fixed on later stage.

Sorry for the stupid question but can you please give a bit more detail about this subscription product?

Who is it for, what does it do?

Ser, please look around before asking stupid questions. Most likely, it is uncovered somewhere already:



Given current shaky state of the market, I’d say that:

  • We should aim for something around $3M with LBP
  • Probably, we want to sell fewer tokens than we anticipated previously, e.g. 10% or so.
  • Airdrop should be 10% or less, with some time-delayed distribution model (vesting or smth like >that). We probably could do a few airdrops instead of just one.
  • After TGE, we should incentivize liquidity providers (Pool2, bonds, or some other mechanic). It >probably makes sense to distribute more tokens this way.
  • We should wait with TGE until the market is somewhat stabilized after recent sell-off.

So… $3M LBP @ 10% is a FDV of $30M.

Looks like DAY 0 ~ 60% of supply will be available so a 18M value at launch.


Personally think 30M FDV is a lot.

What do you guys think?


The last VC round valuation is $50M, also check competitors’ landscape in this thread: DexGuru Market Overview

1 Like